Your, ours, and mine: Jesus' use of the prophetic possessive in the Gospel of Matthew.

Abstract

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus overwhelmingly prefers to use the term Father in addressing the disciples, which often appears to affirm the special relationship the disciples have with God. In several instances, however, Jesus uses the phrase "my Father," making a distinction between himself and the disciples. The use of this phrase extends over a significant portion of the gospel narrative and has the rhetorical force of pressing the disciples, and the implied readers who come to identify with the disciples, to adopt certain actions and avoid others, lest they lose their honored status in the Jesus-community.

**********

In 1988 Robert L. Mowery produced an important study of the various terminology used for God in the book of Matthew. Nearly a decade later Mowery followed his initial study with an article in Catholic Biblical Quarterly noting the transition of language in the early part of the Gospel from an emphasis on God as Lord (kyrios) to a vision of God as Father (pater), beginning in the Sermon on the Mount. Mowery makes several enlightening points on the use of the language of God in Matthew, several of which are foundational for this study. First, Jesus does not use the term Father in discussion with either the Pharisees or the devil, but only in discourse with the disciples or disciples/crowds. In fact, Jesus prefers the term Father in addressing the disciples overwhelmingly more so than Lord or God (Father 37x, God 8/9x, Lord 2x; Mowery 1988: 27-28). Second, Jesus is the only character in the Gospel of Matthew to use the term Father, with one exception in 21:9 (Mowery 1988: 33). Third, Jesus identifies God as his own Father through the use of the phrases my Father, my heavenly Father, or my Father in heaven on sixteen occasions (Mowery 1988: 28). Finally, the first occasion of Jesus' use of my Father occurs near the end of the Sermon on the Mount (7:21), though thereafter he usually identifies God as his father (Mowery 1997: 655).

Mowery correctly notes that "These references to the Father repeatedly remind the reader of the unique relationship between the Father and the Son" (1997: 655). Yet it is important to recognize nuances within Jesus' use of possessive paternal language in the Gospel after the Sermon on the Mount. For example, on two occasions Jesus uses possessive language in direct address to God, i.e., in prayer (26: 39, 42). That means the remaining fourteen instances occur in direct discourse with the disciples. Of significance for this study is the way that Jesus uses the possessive my Father in addressing the disciples on a number of occasions.

Several scholars of the First Testament note that the prophets occasionally use special phrasing to distinguish their relationship to YHWH from their perception of the people's relationship to YHWH. Consequently, on occasion, when a prophet says, "Thus says YHWH my God," the prophet intends to distinguish his relationship to YHWH from the people's relationship to YHWH. The subtle insult here is that the prophets claim a relationship with YHWH that they simultaneously deny to the people. Thus, when Isaiah confronts Ahaz when he refuses to ask for a sign, Isaiah says, "Hear then, O house of David. Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also" (Isa 7:13). Isaiah's use of my God makes the implication that Ahaz has proven that YHWH is not his god by his unwillingness to listen to the message of YHWH through Isaiah. In Zechariah 11:4, the prophet begins his message to the poor shepherds, "Thus said YHWH my God." The text following (Zech 11:5-17) makes clear that, in fact, YHWH does not want to assert any claim to the shepherds, but instead seeks their destruction. YHWH is not their god. I have chosen to use the phrase "the prophetic possessive" for such usage (I believe that I borrow this phrase from another scholar, but have not found it in the resources I drew upon in this particular study: e.g. Eissfeldt: 9-11; Mason: 139; Meier, Meyers/Meyers: 249).

In my analysis of the fourteen remaining instances of Jesus' use of the possessives my Father, my heavenly Father, or my Father in heaven, I believe that nine of these function as prophetic possessives. That is, though Jesus uses the Father-language in discourse with the disciples, this language is nuanced and in many cases Jesus particularly uses this prophetic possessive. Furthermore, the use of the prophetic possessive extends across a significant length of the narrative of the Gospel of Matthew so that it appears to achieve a rhetorical effect through repeated use. The fact that the parallel material in Mark and Luke lacks this possessive form lends some credence to the idea that this language produces a rhetorical effect in the Gospel of Matthew. In this article I aim to investigate the rhetorical effect of the prophetic possessive, how it is achieved, and how this affects our understanding of the Gospel of Matthew and its theology.

Challenge--Riposte and Rhetoric

David DeSilva observes that the study of honor discourse opens up avenues for understanding rhetoric and especially the rhetoric of the Gospels (34, 66). What we want to see in the use of the prophetic possessive in Matthew is that this reflects an honor/shame discourse that makes demands upon the (implied) reader who is intended to identify with the disciples in the story, so that the demands upon the disciples become demands upon the readers (here following the classical definition of rhetoric by Aristotle in terms of persuasion).

Challenge--riposte is a social-scientific description of what happens in a culture of honor because honor is, like any other good, a limited good that requires maintenance and can be lost (Malina: 36). The more familiar challenge--riposte mechanisms of the recent past include the judicial court and the duel (Pitt-Rivers: 27-31). In the Gospels we often see challenge-riposte in the challenges that the religious leaders place before Jesus concerning his interpretation and practice of Torah, as in the series of challenges presented to Jesus at the Temple in Jerusalem recorded in Mark 12. As we notice in Jesus' defense of his honor to the challenge of the religious leaders, honor is a public commodity, something one must defend in the eyes of the larger group (Malina: 33). Thus, Mark reports the crowd's favorable response to Jesus' replies to the religious leaders (12:12, 17, 37). In the Gospels this evaluation actually occurs at two levels, both at the story level in the response of the crowds, but also at the discourse level as the (implied) reader responds to the interaction of the characters within the story (borrowing the useful distinction between story and discourse first introduced by Chatman).

Bruce Malina proposes three levels of challenge that one may present to another in a culture that values honor. At the extreme is total dishonor of another that cannot be repaid in any way (murder, adultery, kidnapping). Only slightly less offensive are those extreme affronts to the honor of an individual or an individual's family that nevertheless allow for some form of repayment (e.g. theft, seduction of a virgin). Finally, there are the ordinary interactions that require regular social responses, which, if not met, will bring dishonor to the individual or family (e.g. repaying a gift, marriage between families; Malina: 44-45). The challenges the Pharisees present to Jesus through much of the Gospel of Matthew fall into this final category, though we see early on in Matthew that the Pharisees contemplate the most extreme form of dishonor (12:14, 21:45), which reaches fulfillment in the crucifixion of Jesus (27:32-50).

Jesus' challenges to his disciples also fall within the last category of those that require regular social response, though we will see that in Jesus' use of the prophetic possessive, not responding appropriately holds significant consequences. The uniqueness of Jesus' challenges to the disciples in the Gospel of Matthew is that he sets up the discourse in a way that makes the disciples his equals through his use of Father/ son language in the Sermon on the Mount (agreeing with Luz 1989:214 that the Sermon on the Mount serves as a programmatic statement for reading the rest of the Gospel). In normal social interaction in honor-shame cultures, the inferior is not considered to have sufficient honor to resent the affront of a superior (Pitt-Rivers: 31). Rather, the inferior is expected simply to submit to the various abuses of the superior. Only when persons recognize their relative shared status is one in a position either to challenge the honor of another or to be required to respond to a challenge (a superior can often ignore the affront of an inferior, though the superior may choose to punish impudence; Pitt-Rivers: 31). We notice that the Pharisees in the Gospel of Matthew consider Jesus their equal as they often address him simply as "teacher," one competing with them for honor in the perception of the crowds; only the disciples come to recognize Jesus as more than a teacher (for this contrast between the Pharisees' view of Jesus as teacher and the disciples/reader's view of Jesus as more than this see Johnson: 195).

Jesus presents the disciples with a challenge as those of equal honor especially through the first major discourse of the Sermon on the Mount. Of course, in the discourse of the Gospel, the implied author presents Jesus as honorable in a number of ways before the implied reader encounters the Sermon on the Mount. DeSilva enumerates the variety of ways that the first four chapters of the Gospel present Jesus as honorable: his birth in the line of Abraham and David, the formulaic citations of Scripture as prophecies of future greatness, Jesus' mediation of God's presence to the people, the new star signaling the birth of a noble ruler confirmed by the adoration of the magi, his deliverance from danger by angelic visions, and his victory in the challenge-ripostes with the devil (40-42). Perhaps most significant for our discussion is the declaration by God at Jesus' baptism of Jesus as his beloved Son (3:17). This acclamation of Jesus' Sonship marks the first of only two interventions of the voice of God in the Gospel, the second of which confirms the original acclamation (17:5).

One important thing Jesus does in the Sermon on the Mount, as the mediator of God's presence in the world (1:23), is transfer his honor as God's Son to the disciples. He offers a blessing to those who make peace by noting they will be called sons of God (5:9; I retain the masculine terminology here to emphasize the connection to the earlier acclamation of Jesus as God's "Son"). The good works of the disciples will bring glory to their Father in heaven (5:16). They are to be perfect as their heavenly Father is perfect (5:48). The disciples should perform their acts of righteousness in secret so as not to lose their reward from their Father in heaven (6:1, 4, 6, 18). The prayer Jesus teaches his disciples to pray opens with the address "Our Father" (6:9), though the disciples must recognize that their forgiveness from their Father depends on their forgiving others (6:14-15). They ought not worry about what to eat, drink, or wear, because their Father takes care of the sparrows (6:26) and knows all the disciples' needs (6:32). In fact, they must expect that their Father will give to them when they ask because he is so much greater than their earthly fathers who, despite being evil, know to give their children fish and bread (7:11).

It is at the end of this lengthy discourse in which Jesus frequently affirms to the disciples that God is your Father, where Jesus invites them to pray our Father, that Jesus presents his first challenge to the disciples through the use of the prophetic possessive, my Father. The sermon is full of challenge, to be sure. But these challenges assume that the disciples will live up to their calling based on their intimate relationship with God as their Father. In the use of my Father, Jesus challenges their honored position as something they could lose based upon their response to his challenges, a phenomenon which will carry on through much of the Gospel. Jesus' use of the prophetic possessive differs from the prophets' usage in that the prophets indicate no relationship to YHWH. Jesus' use of the prophetic possessive presumes a relationship between the disciples and God, but one that may be lost if the disciples do not respond appropriately to the challenges Jesus puts before them.

The Challenge of My Father to the Disciples

The first use of the prophetic possessive in Matthew at the end of the Sermon on the Mount apparently intensifies the sermon's demands upon the disciples, noting that to enter the kingdom of the heavens requires entering through the narrow gate that leads to life (7:13). The determination of who enters through this gate is imagined through the metaphor of fruit-bearing; only those who bear fruit will enter the kingdom of the heavens (7:18-20). What perhaps surprises the disciples in the text (though perhaps not the implied reader) is that not all who share the life of the Jesus-community will be friends of the community; instead false prophets will infiltrate the community, strikingly envisioned as devouring wolves (7:15). In this context Jesus utters the warning, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of the heavens, but only those who do the will of my Father who is in the heavens" (7:21). Some people who do wonders in the community, prophesying and casting out demons, will nevertheless not enter the kingdom of the heavens because they do not do the will of God as taught by the mediator of God's presence to the world--Jesus (7:22-23; see Aune: 222-24 for a discussion of these prophets as Christian).

Ulrich Luz is certainly correct to connect vv 21-23 with the preceding section of vv 15-20, especially with prophecy as one of the key activities of those condemned in both sections (vv 15, 22; 1989:439 notes the bracketing of poieo in vv 15-20 and 22; Davies & Allison 1988:693-94 list further connections; cf. Betz: 539). To regard vv 21-23 as an exhortation against self-delusion (Betz: 539) seems a bit off the mark. Rather, the disciples must protect themselves against being deluded by the charismatic, by those who prophesy and cast out demons. The disciples must not be led astray from obedience to the teachings of Jesus (7:24-27) by those with great charismatic gifts, gifts not unlike those of Jesus (e.g., chs. 8-9). Thus, it seems the warning here aligns with the similar warning that occurs later in the Gospel in the so-called apocalyptic discourse (24:11-12, 23-28) of the possibility of being deluded by false prophets at the end.

The use of the prophetic possessive here reinforces the possibility of charismatic leaders' infiltrating the Jesus-community and leading the disciples astray. These false prophets, rather than fulfilling the just demands of the Torah as taught by Jesus (5:17-20), instead work lawlessness and so must depart from the kingdom of the heavens (7:23). Logically, those who follow these workers of lawlessness will also engage in works of lawlessness and find themselves in danger of being on the outside looking in. Only those who side with Jesus and do the will of my Father in the heavens (build their house on a solid rock; 7:24-27), will enter the kingdom of the heavens. Betz (548) notes that the my Father separates Jesus sharply from, in Betz's discussion, "the Gentile Christians he rejects." I am simply adding that this also points to the danger such Christians (Gentile or not) present to the disciples and, inferentially, the implied reader. The use of my Father coincides with language that images God as a judge (Betz: 548), whose co-regent, Jesus, passes a condemning sentence that casts the false prophets (and their followers?) out of the kingdom for their rebellious disobedience (7:23; Schweizer: 188 writes that my Father appears in 7:21 "perhaps precisely because in the next verse Jesus appears as judge, as authorized representative of the Father). The challenge Jesus gives to the disciples is not to let themselves fall under the charismatic spell of the false prophets but to keep to the will of the Father as presented by Jesus.

We find the next use of the prophetic possessive in the Gospel of Matthew in the second major discourse, issuing a similarly stern warning. As the missionary discourse (chapter 10) heads toward its end, Jesus warns the disciples that, like Jesus, they will find themselves maligned even by members of their own families (10:24-25), shall we say persecuted on account of Jesus (5:11). The disciples must guard against letting the fear of persecution lead them to deny Jesus before their persecutors (10:26-33). Notice that Jesus affirms the disciples at one level by reminding them that even the sparrows cannot fall to the ground apart from your Father's knowledge (10:29). Jesus turns to the use of my Father to state, positively, that those who confess him before their persecutors Jesus will confess before my Father who is in the heavens (10:32). Stated negatively, Jesus warns that those who deny him before their persecutors he will deny before my Father who is in the heavens (10:33).

It is interesting, first of all, to note here that Jesus sets before the disciples the possibility that their witness will end in the most extreme form of shame--according to the scale set forth by Malina--death (10:28). Yet, Jesus states that an even greater shame may lie ahead of them if they deny Jesus before their persecutors--to have both body and soul destroyed in Gehenna (10:29). Here we find a figure of God as judge following quite closely upon an image of God as Father who cares even for the sparrows that fall to the ground (Weaver: 109). "Jesus asserts that the same God who is Judge over all humankind is in fact none other than Father to the disciples" (Weaver: 110).

Dorothy Jean Weaver points out that the main thrust of the argument in 10:26-33 is that Jesus plays a central role both in regard to the disciples' witness and the judgment of God (111). Jesus truly mediates the presence of God who is both judge and Father. But, in this instance, the use of the prophetic possessive my Father lays emphasis on God as potential judge of the disciples. The challenge that Jesus lays before the disciples involves their willingness to share with him in death in the face of persecution in order to receive the greatest honor: to have Jesus confess them before his Father in the heavens. But if they deny him, they will suffer the greatest shame of having Jesus deny them before his Father in the heavens. Jesus switches his language quickly from your Father to my Father to drive home the point that the disciples must choose right actions (confessing Jesus before their persecutors) in order to maintain their honored status in the Jesus-community.

Jesus' use of my Father occurs next in a situation that seems to reaffirm the status of the disciples rather than challenge it. In 11:27 Jesus notes that all those that he has, he received from his Father. This assertion that he receives all from his Father leads to an invitation for those tired from their labors and loaded down by burdens to come and receive his burden which is easy and light (11:28-30). In the next instance of my Father we find another use of the prophetic possessive, though with a slightly different direction. After a series of conflicts with the Pharisees (12:1-14; 22-45), interrupted by Jesus' withdrawal because of their potential threat to him (12:15-21), Jesus receives the report that his mother, brothers, and sisters wish to speak to him (12:46). Jesus stretches out his hand toward his disciples in front of the gathered crowds (12:46) and states boldly, "Behold my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father who is in the heavens, this one is my brother and sister and mother" (12:49b-50).

Here the challenge to the disciples is indirect, but again we find an interesting mixture of honor and shame discourse. Jesus honors the disciples as those who are truly his brother, sister, and mother, in a culture that expected the greatest honor to obtain in the family (Malina: 29; Dupont: 108, writes that nobility in ancient Rome did not depend upon the clan or family name but was built up or torn down within the household or family setting). Yet, at the same time, we find a challenge similar to the first use of the prophetic possessive: only those who do the will of my Father maintain their honored status.

At the level of discourse it appears that the implied reader should notice the distinction made between the crowds and the basic expectation of disciples through the use of the prophetic possessive. Jack Dean Kinsbury's assessment of the crowds as generally favorably disposed to Jesus yet without faith, seems a bit innocuous (24-25). Rather, here we find, through an awareness of intertextuality, that one of the basic elements that determines future judgment, whether people do the will of my Father who is in the heavens (as mediated by Jesus; 7:21), separates the disciples from everyone else, both the crowds and, as implied by the text, Jesus' family. We may find further contextual support for this hard distinction between the disciples and crowds if we link this to the preceding story that warns of the demonic activity experienced by "this evil generation" (taking my cue from Harrington 1991: 191-92, who notes that this evil generation seems to include all those who do not do the will of the Father). This does not mean that the implied author views "the Jews" as completely outside election and salvation (Barnett). The main target of condemnation in the Gospel is the religious leaders (Foster), with the crowds as an ambiguous group, sometimes on the outside of the Jesus-community, as here, but at others entering the kingdom instead of the religious leaders as in 21:23 (notice these people include prostitutes and sinners). The implication for the implied reader in chapter 12 is that, to maintain their honored status, in contrast with others outside of the Jesus-community, they must continue to do the will of Jesus' Father. Thus, the challenge to the disciples in 7:21 receives affirmation here in 12:50 (for this link between 7:21 and 12:50 see, e.g., Nolland: 519).

Several chapters later Jesus presents a direct challenge to the disciples at the story level through the use of the prophetic possessive, though we again find the disciples contrasted with another group, in this case the Pharisees. In an exchange over whether eating with unwashed hands makes an individual unclean (15:1-11), Jesus challenges the Pharisees' use of tradition, calling them hypocrites for upholding their traditions while making void the word of God (15:6). The disciples express some concern over Jesus' exposing his interlocutors to public shame instead of trying to persuade them in what they would consider a more appropriate manner (15:12; Keener: 413). Jesus challenges the disciples to think differently about the Pharisees: they are not plants planted by my Father in heaven and will be uprooted (15:13). Perhaps the implied reader is intended to experience another moment of intertextuality in Jesus' use of the planting/uprooting imagery. Earlier in the Gospel, both John the Baptist and Jesus speak of trees in danger of being uprooted and cast into the fire (3:8-10; 7:15-20). Perhaps the implied reader is intended to fill in the blank here in chapter 15, concluding that those uprooted will be cast into fire, which would once again link the use of my Father to an image of God as judge.

The force of "leave them" in 15:14 seems quite strong considering that Jesus labels the Pharisees as blind guides who lead other blind people into a pit (cf. Harrington: 230, who writes that "let them be" asks for "patient tolerance"). Consequently, at the story level, though the statement explicitly condemns the Pharisees as honoring their traditions above God's word and as blind guides leading the blind into a pit, the challenge is aimed at the disciples not to turn to the Pharisees as guides in the interpretation of Torah, lest they show themselves to also be blind and follow the Pharisees into the same pit. The implied reader will note that the disciples find themselves in danger of being deluded not only by those inside the community (7:21) but also by those outside of the community, particularly the Pharisees of formative Judaism (15:14). To maintain their honored status in the Jesus-community requires that the disciples recognize that the key religious leaders of formative Judaism are not planted by my Father in heaven and so not reliable guides in the way of God.

Perhaps most interesting of the uses of the prophetic possessives I identify in the Gospel of Matthew occurs in the blessing to Peter in 16:17-19. As is well known, Peter offers the right answer concerning Jesus' identity by confessing Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God (16:16). Jesus blesses him, stating that Peter did not receive this revelation from human beings but from my Father who is in the heavens, promising to build his church upon this petra (16:1718). It appears that this instance of the possessive language is similar to the use in 11:27, given that Jesus begins his address to Peter with "Blessed are you" (Nolland: 666, notes the link between 11:27 and 16:17 in the shared use of revelation and "flesh and blood" language). But, given that the language of my Father has proven negative in three of the four previous occurrences, perhaps this should give us pause to consider whether this is another instance of the use of the prophetic possessive.

Jeannine Brown argues that it is common for scholars to view the confession of Peter as a sign that the disciples understood Jesus' identity as Messiah, but the following section (16:21-28) seems to contradict this, so that the disciples at the least do not understand what the Messiah is about (59-60). I argue that part of the problem of determining the tradition history of this text lies just in the seeming contradiction between Jesus' affirmation of Peter and then Peter's quick turn against Jesus' professed purpose, which leads to Jesus calling Peter "Satan" (see Davies & Allison 1991: 653-55 for a brief discussion of the place of vv 21-23 in the pericope). However, perhaps the implied author leaves the implied reader a clue in vv 13-20 that things are not as they seem by including the phrase "my Father." Thus, the statement in verse 17 would not simply represent the source of the revelation (not human but divine), but rather provide some distance between the revelation/revealer and Peter. If we follow the reading argued for by Chrys Caragounis, that the petra here refers to the confession and not Peter (88-113; cf. Davies & Allison 1991: 627), then we see that some distance exists between the content of the revelation/the one revealing the content and Peter. In essence, my Father reinforces this distance, so that the implied reader is not as surprised by the quick turn of events as she might be otherwise (perhaps further reinforced by Jesus' stating that he will build my ekklesia on this petra?).

As a result, the challenge here seems to lie at the discourse level. The implied author envisions Peter here as a new Abraham establishing a new people of God based on the revelation he receives (Davies & Allison 1991: 623-24). However, even Peter did not fully understand the destiny of this Messiah Jesus, much as Abraham did not seem to understand fully the blessing he received from God (note that immediately after the call and blessing of Abraham, he enters into Egypt where he promptly lies about Sarah and hands her over to Pharaoh out of fear for his own life; Gen 12:10-20!). The implied reader must not make the mistake of misunderstanding the Messianic mission of Jesus, which led to his death and not the restoration of Israel, lest she be shamed by taking the side of Satan instead of God.

A series of three instances of my Father occurs in the discourse of chapter 18, which has to do with life in the ekklesia, especially regarding sin and forgiveness. The first major section of the chapter involves a discussion of the "little ones" and the need to guard against causing them to stumble or be tempted to sin (18:5-14). The language of this chapter is thick with images of judgment: being drowned in the sea is better than causing a little one to stumble (18:6); one should cut off a hand or gouge out an eye rather than be thrown into the fires of Gehenna (18:8-9). I would agree with Luz that this latter statement is aimed at the little ones, warning them not to have contact with persons who would want to destroy their faith (Luz 2001: 435).

In this context of judgment Jesus offers the initial prophetic possessive in this chapter, "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in the heavens always see the face of my Father who is in the heavens" (18:10). Again, within the Jesus-community reside those who, at least potentially, look down on others, whether for their inferior social status or their status in the church (Luz 2001: 440). Those who despise such little ones do not understand the honored status of these little ones: not only do their angels continually see the face of my Father, but the Father, like a shepherd, rejoices over the one found more than the ninety-nine who did not go astray (18:12-13). Thus, verse 10b stands both as a word of comfort to those who seem little, despised in the community, and a warning for those in the Jesus-community who despise such persons (Luz 2001: 441). The challenge that Jesus places before the disciples is not to despise the little ones and so lead them into temptation lest they find themselves opposed to the will of the Father (18:14; the textual variant is quite appealing here as it also reads my Father), in which case they might as well tie a millstone around their necks and drown themselves in the sea.

The next section in this discourse deals particularly with what to do when a member of the Jesus-community is caught in sin (18:15-20). Here the emphasis seems to be on making every effort to forgive that person and restore him/her to the community, especially given the following parable (18:21-35; we should, at the same time, note that the reference to the gathering of "two or three" in 18:20 resembles the law in the First Testament stating that a person may be put to death only on the word of "two or three witnesses" Deut 17:6). Yet, here we find a mix of both hope for restoration of the individual and potential judgment, so that the binding and loosing are both validated by my Father who is in the heavens (18:19). Given that previous instances of the use of my Father often occur in texts of judgment, perhaps the implied author uses this expression here because the double-edged nature of the comment includes potential judgment. Thus, at least for some members of the community, God will serve, not as their Father but their judge. As Brown notes (73), the thrust of the section 18:1-20 gives some indication of Jesus' concern that the disciples have not understood the nature of discipleship. I would add that, as a consequence, Jesus presents them a challenge to respond to by not despising others in the community, which could lead little ones to sin, and to exercise appropriate discipline in the community, which for some will entail judgment. In both cases there are some in the community who stand in danger of being shamed in the courtroom of God rather than continue to abide in their honored status as the children of God.

The final instance of the use of the prophetic possessive in the discourse of Matthew 18 occurs at the end of the parable of the unforgiving servant who inexplicably will not forgive a paltry sum to a fellow servant after being forgiven an unimaginable amount of debt by the king (18:23-34; Keener: 458-59 writes, "This fact starkly reveals the laughably hyperbolic character of the illustration: the poor man owes the king more money than existed in circulation in the whole country at the time!"). Not unexpectedly, the story ends with an image of judgment: the servant who at first received mind-blowing mercy must now go to jail until he can repay his unrepayable debt! To this Jesus adds the sobering comment, "So also will my Father in the heavens do to you unless you forgive, each one their brother or sister, from the heart" (18:35).

Interestingly, the parable does not focus on the king, but rather upon the servant and the servant's reaction to the experience of being forgiven so great a debt (Keesmaat: 268-69). But, the servant obviously did not learn the lesson that living in this kingdom, which offers release from exorbitant debt, requires the same in kind to others (Keesmaat: 269). So, too, the challenge presented by Jesus to Peter (and the rest of the disciples?) is to not fall into a place of dishonor by failing to live up to the standards set by the Father, who forgives extravagantly. The Jesus-community emphasizes forgiveness, not only of my sin, but especially of those who sin against me. Living an unforgiving life once again puts one in danger of losing one's honored status as a child of the Father and instead finding oneself under the judgment of God.

Matthew 20:20-28 contains the last instance of the use of the prophetic possessive in the Gospel. Here the mother of the sons of Zebedee approaches Jesus to ask for John and James to sit at Jesus' right and left in the kingdom (20:20-21). Jesus tells them that they do not understand the nature of their request. Not only do they not understand what it means to partake in the same cup as Jesus, they do not understand that only my Father determines who will hold what place in the kingdom (20:22-23). The other disciples become indignant upon hearing this request, which prompts Jesus to remind them of the proper order in this kingdom: the first in this kingdom are servants, just as the Son of man did not come to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many (20:24-28).

Here we do not find explicit reference to the danger of judgment but, as in chapter 18, the problem Jesus addresses has to do with the misalignment between the disciples' understanding of the kingdom and that of Jesus (Carter: 171 writes, "... in the context of the mother's question in 20.20, such elevation to greatness and to being first will come only in the judgment for those who have been slaves and servants in the present." It is tempting to follow Carter's lead here, but I do not see any indication of a time of judgment in this text but only of an unspecified future). Jesus' kingdom is not like the kingdoms of this world ("the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over [their subjects]"--20:25). Rather, this kingdom reverses normal expectations. Jesus' challenge to the disciples again has to do with seeking proper honor and avoiding shame. Those who act as servants receive the greatest honor; those who seek the greatest honor experience the greatest shame.

Conclusions

Part of the rhetorical effect of the use of the phrase "my Father" in the Gospel of Matthew is that it reinforces the picture of the disciples as not fully understanding the nature of Jesus, the kingdom, or the Jesus-community. In other words, Brown's major thesis, in her The Disciples in Narrative Perspective, that the disciples are not so quick to understand as scholars often portray them because of comparisons with the characterization of the disciples in Mark, gains further support through careful investigation of the Father-language in Matthew (29-34). This proves of especial interest considering that Brown's work focuses on the narrative between 16:21 and 20:28, while six of the nine occurrences of the prophetic possessive discussed above fall within chapters 15 and 20, so that perhaps one of the main functions of chapters 15-20 is this exposition of the disciples' misunderstandings.

One thing I find significant is the fact that in several cases of the use of the prophetic possessive, the narrative does not show an immediate response by the disciples, especially at the end of the three major discourses in chapters 5-7, 10, and 18. Furthermore, Jesus' use of the prophetic possessive ends immediately before his entrance into Jerusalem in chapter 21, which is followed by the narrative of his demise. It is in the narrative of Jesus' passion that we find at the story level the response of the disciples to the challenge in chapter 10 not to deny Jesus in the face of persecution. In their first chance to respond to Jesus' challenge the disciples abandon, deny, and betray Jesus. The disciples' misunderstanding of, especially, the nature of Jesus as Messiah and the nature of the kingdom, leads to the disciples' shame in the eyes of the implied readers who see all the disciples denying Jesus in some way during Jesus' passion.

However, the Gospel does not end with the crucifixion or, like Mark, with an ambiguous resurrection story. Rather, Jesus tells the disciples to meet him in Galilee, perhaps giving those shamed a chance for redemption (28:10). Here it is important to highlight the fact that the narrator presents a mixed review of the remaining eleven disciples: "when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted" (28:17). Thus, whether the disciples live up to the challenges Jesus placed before them in the Gospel remains an open question for the narratee, though these same disciples may perhaps restore their honor in responding positively to Jesus' challenges, including the last one given in 28:18-20. Significantly, the commission Jesus gives the disciples includes the instruction: "teaching them to keep all of whatever I commanded you" (28:19). This presumably would include instructions for life in the Jesus-community, which previously the disciples misunderstood.

At the level of discourse, the use of the prophetic possessive gives us a fairly clear picture of at least some of the struggles the implied author believes confront the implied reader. The implied reader must guard against false prophets who lead people astray from obedience to Jesus' teaching (7:21 [12:50]). As with the disciples, the implied readers may also deny Jesus in the face of persecution rather than confess Jesus (10:32-33). The Pharisees pose their own threat to the implied reader, who may be tempted to (re-)turn to following the Pharisees' interpretation of Torah, a certain pitfall in the eyes of the implied author (15:13). Several potential misunderstandings threaten the implied readers of the Gospel including misunderstanding the nature of Jesus as Messiah (16:17), the life of the Jesus-community (ekklesia) with regard to sin and forgiveness (18:10, 19, 35), and thinking of life in the Jesus-community as the Gentiles do rather than shaped by the example of Jesus (20:23). Though we are careful not to draw a one-to-one correspondence between these dangers and the life of original real readers of the Gospel of Matthew, these indications of the implied author's concerns certainly give us a vision of what one real author in formative Christianity considered imminent threats to at least one Jesus-community (duly noting here the caution regarding the audience of the Gospels posed by Bauckham et al.).

Finally, I think it is right to conclude that the Father-language in the Gospels in a number of instances affirms the honored status of the disciples. Yet, a pregnant irony exists in the use of my Father on a number of occasions. That is, when Jesus uses my Father he often simultaneously infers that his Father will be "your Judge." This seems to me quite an artful maneuver by the implied author to invoke the image of judgment by means of Father-language. I am reminded of the fact that kings of the ancient world were often considered the highest court of appeal in the nation (thus, e.g., Paul's appeal to Caesar recorded in Acts 25:11). The familial language of Father denotes some form of intimacy, yet in the use of the prophetic possessive the implied author creates space that allows this same Father to act as judge in the kingdom of the heavens. Certainly, the kingdom of heaven is present at hand in the Gospel of Matthew (3:2; 4:17) but, to borrow George Eldon Ladd's felicitous terminology, it is "now and not yet" (24-51). In the kingdom being "not yet" the Gospel anticipates a time when it will come in its future and often this is imaged as a time of judgment (e.g. 13:47-50; 25:31-46). Jesus' use of the prophetic possessive in the Gospel of Matthew reinforces this theme of judgment and reminds the implied reader that the same one they pray to as "our Father" may still, in the end, serve as their Judge if they do not respond to the challenge offered by Jesus in the Gospel.

Works Cited

Aune, David E. 1983. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Barnett, Fred W. 1992. "Exposing the Anti-Jewish Ideology of Matthew's Implied Author: The Characterization of God as Father." Semeia 59: 155-90.

Bauckham, Richard. ed. 1998. The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Betz, Hans Dieter. 1995. The Sermon on the Mount, ed. A. Y. Collins. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Brown, Jeanine K. 2002. The Disciples in Narrative Perspective. Academia Biblica. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.

Carter, Warren. 1994. Households and Discipleship: A Study of Matthew 19-20. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement 103. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic.

Caragounis, Chrys C. 1990. Peter and the Rock. Beihefte zur Zeitsehrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissensehaft 58. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.

Chatman, Seymour. 1978. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Davies, W. D., & Dale C. Allison. 1991. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. vol. 2. Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark.

1988. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. vol. 1. Edinburgh, UK: T&T Clark.

DeSilva, David A. 1999. Hope of Glory: Honor Discourse in New Testament Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

DuPont, Florence. 1993. Daily Life in Rome. trans. C. Woodall. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Eissefeldt, Otto. 1947. "'My God' in the Old Testament." Evangelical Quarterly 19: 7-20.

Foster, Robert. 2002. "Why on Earth Use 'Kingdom of Heaven'? Matthew's Terminology Revisited." New Testament Studies 48: 487-99.

Harrington, Daniel J. 199 I. Gospel of Matthew. Sacra Pagina. Coilegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

Johnson, Luke Timothy, with the assistance of T. C. Penner. 1999. The Writings of the New Testament. Minneapolis, MN: Fortness.

Keener, Craig S. 1999 Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Keesmaat, Sylvia C. 2000. "Strange Neighbors and Risky Care. " Pp. 263-85 in The Challenge of Jesus' Parables, ed. R. N. Longenecker. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. 1988. Matthew as Story. 2nd revised & enlarged ed. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Ladd, George Eldon. 1958/1995. The Gospel of the Kingdom. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Luz, Ulrich. 2001. Matthew 8-20, trans. J. E. Crouch, ed. H. Koester. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1989. Matthew 1-7, trans. W. C. Linss. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Malina, Bruce J. 2001. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. 3rd ed., revised & expanded. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.

Mason, Rex L. 1973. Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah IX-XIV. PhD Dissertation, University of London.

Meier, Samuel A. 1992. Speaking of Speaking: Marking Direct Discourse in the Hebrew Bible. Vetus Testamentum, Supplement 46. Leiden, The Netherlands: E.J. Brill.

Meyers, Carol L. & Eric M. Meyers. 1993. Zechariah 9-14. Anchor Bible, vol. 25C. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Mowery, Robert L. 1997. "From Lord to Father in Matthew 1-7." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59: 642-56. 1988. "God, Lord and Father: The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew." Biblical Research 33: 24-36.

Nolland, John. 2005. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Pitt-Rivers, Julian. 1966. "Honor and Social Status." Pp. 19-77 in Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society, ed. J. G. Peristiany. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Schweizer, Eduard. 1975. Good News according to Matthew, trans. D. E. Green. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press.

Weaver, Dorothy Jean. 1990. Matthew's Missionary Discourse: A Literary-Critical Analysis. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement 38. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic.

Robert L. Foster is a PhD candidate at Southern Methodist University. His previous publications include "Why on Earth Use 'Kingdom of Heaven'? Matthew's Terminology Revisited," New Testament Studies 48 (2002): 487-99. Currently he is engaged in writing his dissertation on a biblical theology of justice with particular emphasis on Jeremiah, Matthew, and Romans.